John Ringo on a 2013 Hugo winner

The Baen Books author wonders how much longer conservative and libertarian readers are going to continue to buy derivative books written by a progressive male demi-feminist who openly despises them:

So about the whole Scalzi ‘thing.’

Scalzi was pissing
me off even before getting a Hugo for a novel so remarkably unremarkable
it would barely have made it to paperback in the 1970s. Nothing against
it, it’s a fun, simple, mindless, read from all I’ve gathered. But it’s
not exactly Stranger in a Strange Land or Nightfall.

Scalzi
is president of SFWA (sort of the writer’s union for SF authors) or
whatever they’re calling it this week. As president instead of, oh, I
dunno, working to get better generalized terms for new authors, ensuring
contracts are upheld with publishers, maybe, someday, getting a fucking
health care insurer for all us authors who don’t have health insurance,
he’d been concentrating on IMPORTANT matters like making sure all
characters were called s/he and women weren’t being harassed at cons
(which happens and is up to the convention people to manage) and… The
list of ‘not-core-issue’ kerfuffles he’s been involved in as president
makes you think he’s president of ACORN not an SF union. And it was not
only driving out members (or they were expelling members for
‘bad-speak’) it was making the group as irrelevant as the opinion of an
abyssal nematode.

But I wasn’t the only one that Scalzi was pissing off. And that’s sort of the important point for Scalzi….

Which is where we start to see the issues with Scalzi suddenly not so
much ‘coming out of the closet’ but making a splash on a variety of
hot-button issues that really don’t sit well with his RETAIL market. The
people who actually BUY the books over the counter as opposed to
market, sell and even buy them for distribution. The more books you can
get a bookstore to buy, the more likely you are to sell them. So being
the poster child for your commercial people is a good thing.
Pissing off the people who in the end have to actually buy the books to read…. Not so much.

And the market fraction of true ‘Modern Progressives’ who read combat SF is HYSTERICALLY low.

Many people who used to be fans of the 2013 Best Novel winner are beginning to figure out that Scalzi is a fraud, not so much because he exaggerates his daily blog readership by a mere 46,000 readers (or, if you prefer, 1,150 percent), but in terms of him being an original writer or one who is even remotely considerate of conservative or libertarian perspectives.  It’s possible, I suppose, that the all-seeing eye of Instapundit, who used to push Scalzi’s books on a regular basis, happens to be totally unaware of the Hugo awards, which he has not seen fit to mention.

Or perhaps the libertarian opinion leader has, like Mr. Ringo, gradually had his eyes opened to the real Scalzi, to the man’s increasingly vocal support for insane left-wing policies, to his hatred for free association, and to his complete flip-flop on free speech.  Remember, back in 2005, before he was established in the science fiction world, Scalzi was claiming that he wouldn’t want to see anyone expelled from SFWA for their beliefs. In 2013, he quit paying his SFWA dues and threatened to quit the organization entirely if someone wasn’t expelled from the SFWA for their beliefs.

How things change once a man feels he can afford to reveal his true character.

Unlike Mr. Ringo, I’m genuinely pleased that McRapey won the Hugo for a mediocre and derivative novel. That isn’t false magnanimity, it is merely that I am publicly on record as stating that the awards in the SF field became a hopelessly politicized joke when incoming SFWA president Catharine Asaro won the Nebula for The Quantum Rose in 2002. I drew considerable ire from many SFWA members for pointing that out on Black Gate last year, and I view three-time SFWA president John Scalzi’s Hugo for Redshirts as conclusive evidence in support of my hypothesis.

I also found it amusing that even McRapey’s little Twitter friend at the Guardian wrote about the Hugo awards with a distinct damned-by-faint-praise air to the article.

There is something else too, something darker. I once accidentally won a drawing award when I was six. I can’t draw at all and so I traced an image of a wood duck for a homework assignment. I had absolutely no idea that the teacher would send it into the Star as part of a big state-wide school competition, still less that I would win it for my 5-7 age group. That bloody duck was even featured in the Minneapolis newspaper. I don’t think my mother realized I wasn’t an artist until after I had graduated from college and she never figured out why both the newspaper clippings and the award disappeared.

So I speak from experience when I say that the only thing that rankles the soul more than merit that goes unrecognized is recognition that the receiver knows is unmerited. As writers, we know very well where our books stand in comparison with the greats as well as which of our contemporaries merit being numbered among them. That is why there are few things I could do to more cruelly scar the hypersensitive McRapey over time than the voting WorldCon membership has now done. Once the excitement from his long-sought Sally Field moment fades and the inevitable self-doubts creep in – for the narcissistic gamma male is ever prone to self-doubts as well as grandiose delusions – well, that’s when it should get interesting.

At least he’ll always have his lawn.

On the other hand, there are still those, like Professor Bainbridge, who not only don’t know mediocre science fiction when they see it, but are from the short-sighted conservative school of thought that is proud to materially support the very progressives, socialists and Trotskyites who seek to destroy it.  I can’t say I blame him, as I used to be inclined to a libertarian view of that perspective until the creation of Fox News made it very clear what a severe price had been paid over time for the privilege of feeling open-minded.

Another discussion of Ringo’s observations of John Scalzi’s achievement in left-liberal politicking, including an appearance by the Toad of Tor herself, can be found here. Note that you have to turn off NoScript to see the comments.


He can handle her

Rollo responds to a meme popular among some women:  “I’m selfish, impatient and a little insecure. I make mistakes, I am out
of control and at times hard to handle. But if you can’t handle me at
my worst, then you sure as hell don’t deserve me at my best.” 

That’s not a bad response.  But Shiunji Watanabe’s is arguably more tolerant, less judgmental, and thereby superior in every way.  Now, THERE is a man who could truly handle a woman at her worst.  And don’t forget, 95 percent of all the weirdness in the world comes out of Japan.  True science fact.

However, since we are considering the wit and wisdom of Marilyn Monroe, surely we would be wise to also contemplate the noted English philosophers collectively known as One Direction?

1.  A lack of consciousness of her beauty is what makes a woman beautiful.
2.  There is no woman less conscious of her beauty than a dead women.
3.  Therefore, dead women are the most beautiful.

ὅπερ ἔδει δεῖξαι.  Thereby justifying not only Mr. Watanabe, but the infamous Hoodoogurus.  Now, I can hear some of you wondering if presenting logically impeccable arguments for necrophilia are the right way to go about winning the upcoming SFWA election, but keep in mind that these are the very people who have created a global cottage industry out of thinly disguised necrophilia and bestiality, to say nothing of electing McRapey not once, not twice, but thrice.


He just wouldn’t stay down

As the Alabama sheriff said, “he was reaching for something….”  I’m not quite sure what amuses me more, the idea that I am the slightest bit concerned about being fair, the idea that I have any concern whatsoever for what Ackroyd thinks, or that he appears to believe he can dig his way out of looking like an ignoramus with a double-digit IQ if he only tries a little harder.

On second thought, I do have a question.  There are four “demotivational” posters featuring individual atheists.  The Hitchens, Harris and Dawkins posters feature words none of them actually said.  Given
that, was it fair of Vox to savage me as an “ignorant atheist” for not
realizing the Dennett poster features words he did say–paraphrased? I
think not.

Of course it was not only fair, but just, that I castigated poor little Ackroyd, accurately or not.  In the immortal words of Obadiah Hakeswill, “says so in the Scriptures”.  If you are going to come in here arrogantly asserting your opinion about the stupidity of this and the idiocy of that and generally acting like a big dog, don’t be surprised when you find yourself unexpectedly sad, wet, and stinking of urine.  I am the bigger dog.  I am an Award Winning Cruelty Artist.   I will cut a bitch with a smile on my face.  A minor character flaw, no doubt, but one concerning which everyone who comments here has been duly notified.

Furthermore, I was undeniably correct about the “ignorant” part.  Ackroyd was, by his own admission, completely ignorant of Dennett’s writings.  And now, thanks to his unwise attempt at ex post facto self-defense, we can safely conclude that he is stupid as well, because after drawing attention to the abject stupidity of the phrase on the poster, tried to defend Dennett’s incompetent argument advocating the intrinsic trustworthiness of science:

“In light of this, do the words on the poster convey Dennett’s point
accurately? Or would it be more fair to paraphrase him as saying
“Science can be trusted, because it yields amazingly accurate results”?
And isn’t this in fact true–as far as it goes?”

Yes, they most certainly do.  No.  And no, because it demonstrably isn’t true at all.  It repeats the very mistake Dennett made, which is the very reason the Dennett demotivator is both accurate and amusing.  Ackroyd still hasn’t understood that Dennett’s syllogism is faulty.  Not all sciences are created equal.  For example, physics yields amazingly accurate results.  Evolutionary biology, on the other hand, unquestionably does not and evolutionary biologists don’t claim that it does.  In his book, Dennett tries a classic New Atheist bait-and-switch, asserting that since both physics and not-physics are called science, if physics yields amazingly accurate results, then not-physics should be trusted… even though not-physics doesn’t produce any of the trust-inspiring results.  I could argue, every bit as reasonably as Dennett, that because theology is a science, “the queen of the sciences”, in fact, it should also be trusted on the basis of the amazingly accurate results of physics.


Peasant Game

This Alpha Game post is dedicated to my friends at Fraters Libertas:

I would be remiss if I did not mention that there is a much more serious and underlying problem [than the Beer Shield] on display here. By holding a beer, by drinking beer, by even being credibly identified as a beer drinker, a man is signifying that he is an illiterate peasant, of solid, but hearty stock, the sort of man thick-waisted farm girls with red faces and ankles the size and shape of overstuffed German sausages expect to meet out behind the haystacks. Civilized men who attract beautiful women drink wine, preferably red wine, although prosecco and lambrusco are acceptable alternatives in the summer heat or on Friday night with pizza.


A painful admission

I recently learned that I am a victim of rape. Hold me, Ralph:

Since 1929, the FBI has defined rape as the carnal knowledge of a female, forcibly and against her will. The revised definition covers any gender of victim or attacker and includes instances in which the victim is incapable of giving consent due to the influence of drugs or alcohol or because of age. Physical resistance is not required.

It’s very hard for me to admit this, or even to come to terms with it after all these years. But, it is very important, so I will be brave and come forward and admit the terrible truth at long last. I am a rape victim.

During my four years at Bucknell University, I was raped on various occasions by a band of serial female rapists whose nefarious actions were known and materially supported by the university administration through its “health office” and enabled by their sorority sisters. Being incapable of giving consent due to the influence of alcohol, I was repeatedly subjected to the most horrific abuse humanity can ever suffer and I am still attempting to come to terms with the psychological damage that has resulted from the delayed post-rape trauma.

There is significant photographic, testimonial, and in one case, even police-recorded blood alcohol content evidence of my inability to provide consent. Therefore, although the statute of limitations has passed concerning any criminal charges, I have contacted a lawyer and expect to be filing a civil lawsuit against the university as well as the sororities Delta Delta Delta, Kappa Kappa Gamma, and Pi Beta Phi.

I appreciate your support. I know I am not alone in this, and there are many men who have suffered in a similar manner. But together, we can be strong and fight against the violent, criminal actions of predatory women who take advantage of innocent and incapacitated young men.


VPFL Week Three

106 Greenfield Grizzlies (2-1-0)
54 RR Redbeards (2-1-0)

72 Moundsview Meerkats (2-1-0)
51 MS Swamp Spartans (2-1-0)

52 GroverBeach Quixotes (1-2-0)
49 Bane Sidhe (1-2-0)

88 Green Reverends (1-1-1)
37 Macau Marauders (1-2-0)

83 Bailout Banksters (1-1-1)
62 Cranberry Rhyneauxs (1-2-0)

It looks as if the Redbeards used up all their roster magic against the Meerkats last week, as the Grizzly put a serious beatdown on them. As for the Piranha of the Serengeti, they managed to overcome the absence of their WR1, RB1, RB3, the severe devaluation of their WR2 (Reggie Wayne), and the disappearance of the Dream Team Philadelphia DEF thanks to the six combined TDs of the Aaron Rodgers-Jermichael Finley connection. Can you say 43 combined points? Yes, yes you can.

Of course, it’s hard to take too much pleasure in that high-performance connection when you realize that your NFL equivalent is Donovan-McNabb-Jim Kleinsasser. I’m not entirely convinced that Leslie Frazier can’t coach in The National Football League yet, but the entrails are looking rather dire. Stupid penalties and stupid players are seldom the sign of an intelligent coach, nor is an apparent inability to anticipate an opponent’s halftime adjustments. McNabb isn’t throwing interceptions or fumbling the ball, which is an improvement over The Tarvaris Jackson Experiment, but he’s also not throwing balls anywhere near his receivers. And I simply cannot understand what the Vikings offensive coordinator has against play-action passing; McNabb is still mobile enough for roll-outs to be an effective tactic when the defense is keying on AD. That’s not going to prevent him from throwing his patented worm-burners or keep the ball in-bounds on deep balls, but the occasional 12-yard out or 15-yard crossing pattern should still be viable.

It is beginning to look as if Denny Green, not Tony Dungy, is the best case scenario for Frazier. But if they can’t beat a terrible and poorly coached Kansas City team next week, even that scenario will look optimistic and one can expect the drums to begin beating in earnest.

I note in passing that Yahoo Sports appears to have granted half-credit for last week’s tie game between the Banksters and the Reverends without even asking me, the league commissioner, about it. But a team that is (1-1-1) obviously should not have a “winning percentage” of .500 when it has only won one game out of three! It should be in the same place in the standings at .333 as one that is (1-2-0). That makes me so angry! It just cheapens the whole thing and I am seriously considering resigning as league commissioner.



Mailvox: the double whammy

This may be well be my favorite critical email ever received, as KW manages to not only highlight several of my assertions about the more militant atheists, but to underline, italicize, and bold them as well:

I have been reading assorted texts on the internet and I came across a post that you made a long while back entitled “The socially autistic atheist”. I was particularly interested in your articles because I happen to be both an atheist and an aspie.

It seems to me that the purpose of these articles is to use an ad hominem attack against atheists by calling them “socially autistic” or saying that they have “autistic psychopathy”. You never refute or even address the arguments that these “socially autistic atheists” have in regard to religion or god. In essence, I believe that you are just being a giant asshat troll.

In a previous article you wrote this: Here’s an object lesson that perhaps might be capable of penetrating the skulls of even the most autistically psychopathic. (1) Do you dislike being described as a socially autistic asshole? (2) Would you like it any more if that description was scientifically proven to describe you accurately? (3) Would you consider it polite and/or socially acceptable for me to insist on always describing you to others as an autistic psychopath were this proven to be an accurate description of you?

I assume that this was a reaction to certain aspie atheists spreading the idea that belief in god is a delusion, or that people who believe in god are deluded. well to answer your questions:
1. No of course not. I think that an important distinction to make is that it is an attack on WHO I AM rather than an attack on WHAT I BELIEVE.
2. You are asking a question about a hypothetical scientific description where that hypothetical scientific description would not be scientific. It would however be a logical fallacy (an appeal to authority in this case).I’ll go ahead and say no.
3. No, and I would likely react violently to such discrimination.

Whenever an atheist says that god is a delusion, that is not an attack on any person. It is an attack on an idea. Unlike when you call me a “autistic psychopath”, which is very clearly an attack on who I am as a person. There is no moral equivalence for these statements. TL;DR you are a despicable person who resorts to fighting your intellectual opponents with ad hominem attacks.

I would have expected that you would have already been shamed into making an apology about statements such as this. You are not an expert on autism and you should shut your stupid fucking mouth in my opinion.

With disgust and contempt,
[KW]

Naturally, I replied with all the kindness and moderation for which I am so justly known, considering that the poor lad has about the same chance of ever landing a girlfriend that I have of being named the premier of China. Let’s face it, I couldn’t not respond. I mean, how could I possibly resist the irony of being lectured on the niceties of correct social conventions by an atheist… an atheist with Asperger’s.

My dear boy,

I absolutely believe your claim to be both an atheist and an aspie. Only someone so intellectually handicapped would be so spectacularly stupid as to claim “You never refute or even address the arguments that these “socially autistic atheists” have in regard to religion or god.”

The fact that I have written and published an entire book on the subject that does precisely what you claim I have never done would appear to be sufficient to invalidate your assertion. You can even download a powerpoint slideshow that summarizes some of the more commonly heard arguments from the likes of Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris should you be so inclined. So, congratulations. In ten years of writing controversial op/ed columns and being the recipient of the most vehement forms of criticism from the Council on American-Islamic Relations to godless Sciencebloggers, you have managed to write the single most ignorant email I have ever received. You do Asperger proud.

In respect of your handicap, I shall refrain from pointing out the additional errors you have committed in your response to my questions, although I do invite you to contemplate the moral basis for what you claim is a lack of moral equivalence between the various statements.

With no little amusement,
Vox

And now it’s time for the moral of the story. If you happen to suffer from atheism, Asperger’s Syndrome, or autism, the chances are exceedingly high that your ideas concerning what is and what is not socially acceptable behavior are not going to be in accordance with the societal norms of the neurotypical majority. Therefore, your offers to help others better understand proper social etiquette, however kindly intended they might be, are virtually guaranteed to go badly awry.


The danger of biting at ankles

You tend to get kicked in the teeth a lot:

Ok, so we go the whole day and no-one points out that free fall most certainly is acceleration. 9.8 m/s/s, to be exact.

The statement was not “freefall is not acceleration”, but that “acceleration is not freefall”. Does an orbital rocket blasting off accelerate? Does an automobile? And are either of these machines in freefall while they are accelerating as per their normal operation?

Some commenters appear to have an amount of trouble understanding the concept of sets and subsets. The subset is not, and cannot be, the set of which it is merely a part. (Cue Markku bringing up the null set.) I tend to doubt anyone would have felt the need to attempt offering a correction had I stated, for some inexplicable reason, “Numbers are not nine”. I desperately hope, anyhow, that even the most cluelessly contrarian anklebiter would have been able to resist the urge to reactively insist that “Nine is a number!”

Yes, it most certainly is. But three is a number and it is not nine. Ten is also not nine. There are, in fact, a vast collection of numbers that do not happen to be nine, just as there are many rates of change of velocity over time that do not involve the motion of a body where gravity is the only force acting upon it. The two terms overlap, but they are not interchangeable.

So, a helpful word of advice to the pedantically inclined. If you make a habit of actively seeking to criticize others or just have a tendency to react to assertions in an instinctively contrarian manner, I suggest learning to first ask questions rather than immediately attempting to offer corrections even when you are reasonably sure that you have understood what the other person said. Always get confirmation first. Because when you are dealing with anyone who is reasonably intelligent or even just precise in their thinking, there is a very good chance that your posturing – and let’s face it, that’s what it is – is going to cause you to make an ass of yourself by trying to correct something that is not, in fact, incorrect.

I understand that my towering intellectual arrogance is infuriating to some readers. Even those who often agree with me are sometimes sorely tempted to attempt to “bring me down” when they perceive an opportunity. But not every red flag waved in your face merits a blind and heedless charge. If you’ve read this blog for any time at all, you should be aware that there are few things in which I find more personal amusement than publicly skewering a superficial and reactively contrarian would-be critic.


A conversation with Vox Day

Strike The Root ran an interview with me today:

What writers or philosophers have most influenced you? Has your political thought evolved over time, and if so, was there any particular author or event that pushed you in that direction?

The philosopher that has most influenced me is Marcus Aurelius. While I don’t always succeed in meeting the expected idiosyncrasies of humanity with perfect equanimity, I am very seldom surprised by them. The evil and foolishness of Man is without limit, so it makes no sense to expect much in the way of wisdom or even sense from the average individual. Readers of the Vox Popoli blog are familiar with the acronym MPAI, which means Most People Are Idiots. It’s not actually meant to be as contemptuous as it sounds, (although it certainly comes off that way), it’s merely a reminder that one’s expectations of others must always be mindful of their limitations.